BLOGS in TOPBLOG

By Catherine Dodge and Roger Runningen
Enlarge Image/Details

April 7 (Bloomberg) — President George W. Bush went to Russia looking for a deal on missile defense. He left with less: a “framework agreement” on principles for the Russia-U.S. relationship and a promise that the Russians will keep talking once President Vladimir Putin’s successor takes office.

“We’ve got work to do, but we’ve come a long way from our first discussions,” Bush said at a news conference yesterday with Putin at the Black Sea resort of Sochi. “I happen to believe it’s a significant breakthrough simply because I’ve been involved in this issue and know how far it’s come.”

The two leaders also signed a strategic framework for their successors to guide relations on security, non-proliferation, counter-terrorism and economic issues.

Bush and Putin are grappling with suspicions and strained relations that have developed over the anti-missile plan and expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. NATO leaders agreed at their summit in Bucharest this week to invite Croatia and Albania to join.

While declining to put Ukraine and Georgia on a fast track to membership, which would further Bush’s goal of extending the military alliance into the former Soviet heartland, it vowed to let them in eventually.

Bush and Putin praised each other in their final official meeting as presidents and said they’d work to reach common ground.

`Not Always Easy’

“This dialogue is not always easy between our two countries,” Putin said, but “the search for common denominators” continues. Putin said he and Bush “have sought to find new horizons for our cooperation.”

Bush said the signing of the strategic document shows “the breadth and depth of our cooperation.”

“We spent a lot of time in our relationship trying to get rid of the Cold War,” Bush said. “We worked very hard over the past few years to find areas where we can work together.”

The U.S. says the missile system is needed to intercept attacks from rogue regimes in the Middle East, such as Iran, and isn’t aimed at Russia. Russia fears the system will upset the balance of power in Europe and risk a new arms race.

“Our fundamental attitude to the American plans have not changed, however, certain progress is obvious,” Putin said.

“We’ve got more work to do to convince the Russian side that the system is not aimed at Russia,” Bush said.

`Equal Partners’

The framework agreement said both sides “expressed their interest in creating a system” to prevent missile threats and Russia, Europe and the U.S. would participate “as equal partners.”

Still, Putin is giving preference to “a global defense” system against potential adversaries compared with the U.S- backed regional system.

The Bush administration wants to install a radar base in the Czech Republic and 10 interceptor missiles in Poland. The U.S. and the Czech Republic completed negotiations and announced on April 3 that they would soon sign an agreement.

Negotiations are continuing on a U.S. offer to give Russian inspectors access to the sites and delay making the system operational until Iran has missiles that can reach Europe.

Putin said that Russia wants its inspectors to be granted “permanent” access to the facilities.

“I have cautious optimism” about a deal, he said. “I believe this is possible, but the devil is in the detail.”

Both leaders are seeking to polish their legacies as they prepare to hand over power.

`Up Note’

“In light of the fact that they are both ready to pass the baton on, they would rather leave on an up note rather than a sense of estrangement,” said Charles Kupchan, a professor of international relations at Georgetown University in Washington.

Stephen Hadley, national security adviser to Bush, said it didn’t matter that no deal was completed.

“They can leave that to their prospective successors,” he told reporters on Air Force One as Bush returned home yesterday.

Bush conferred separately with Putin’s successor, Dmitry Medvedev, who will be sworn in May 7. Putin will remain on the scene as prime minister. Bush will leave office in January after U.S. voters go to the polls in November.

“He seemed like a straightforward fellow; someone to tell you what’s on his mind,” Bush said of Medvedev. “I was impressed.”

“My guess is that these two men who have worked very closely together now for two decades will continue to do so. That is a good thing, not a bad thing,” Hadley said in commenting on Putin and Medvedev.

Bush wrapped up a four-country, seven-day trip, which included the April 2-4 NATO summit and stops in Ukraine and Croatia. He returned to Washington yesterday afternoon.

To contact the reporter on this story: Catherine Dodge in Sochi, Russia at Cdodge1@bloomberg.netRoger Runningen in Sochi, Russia at rrunningen@bloomberg.net

Comments(0)

Here is a random selection of comments left by the 350 LibDems who have so far taken part in the Cleggover Political Sex Survey. Enjoy…

“Well I quite fancy you - if you were straight as it is, I think you are a good gay role model.”

“The ‘frequency’ question needed a write-in box: If I’m in a relationship, which was the case twice in the last year, it’s somewhere between a few times a day and a few times a week. If I’m not, it’s not at all for months on end. So I averaged at once a month, but that’s a misleading answer. As usual, a Tory failed to realise how to ask the right question.”

“Someone should write a book about the link between political ambition and sex drive — I say this having slept with politicians of the opposite sex of all three parties. Much better than the apolitical masses!”

“Its like a sexual version of Cluedo: Sarah Teather, over the woolsack with a feather duster.”

“OK, well, Chatham House rules - quote this if you like, but my name doesn’t get associated with it. (Not that you actually know my name or anything about me, at least I hope not.) I’m a male Lib Dem student. I was at a political debate at a student society, and afterwards we were having some wind-down drinks with guest speakers and the committee. A certain male Lib Dem MP, in his 40s, had been a speaker, and we started chatting. It was initially about student politics etc, we had a bit of a disagreement on the smoking ban (he supports it, I think it’s illiberal bullshit). The questions got more and more, er, unpolitical; this fellow started asking questions about my opinions on other (male) members of the student society. I think the fact that I was gay had already been mentioned in some context, I don’t make any secret about it. So yeah, this guy was asking if I fancied the president of our debating club (I didn’t), in retrospect an odd question but I was drunk and it didn’t seem weird at the time. So I milled around, chatted to more people, got more drunk, the night went on. Our society had booked this MP a hotel room for the night - we usually do that for guests who have to come a fair distance late on - and not knowing the city, our yellow-feathered friend asked me if I could walk him back to his hotel, since I knew my way around town. I didn’t think anything of it. We got as far as the road when he asked me if I wanted to come up for a drink (that’s when the penny dropped, god I was being slow wasn’t I …) I did a Brown, I’m afraid. Bottled it. Didn’t really fancy him in the slightest though. And why bother? I mean, I’ve actually bedded a couple of players from my uni’s rugby team, they were über-fit and had six-packs and are officially straight (hah! hardon says otherwise). Way more risqué than some podgy middle-aged MP. Why the f*** am I telling you this, you’re a Tory, and this is my private life. Call it Clegg Syndrome. Meh.”

“The freedom to express my own sexual feelings is part of such a great ideology that only the Liberal Democrats can bring.”

“I clicked yes to “affair” but as I’m in an open relationship it doesn’t really count as being unfaithful. I’ve only ever done it with permission, and sometimes even with my committed life partner present and participating.”

Comments(0)

Amazing.

I was not going to post on here for a few more weeks, but this has really pissed me off.

It would appear Muslim criminals >Arn’t they all< should not discuss there crimes, well I want to know, as a good Muslim, why are they breaking the laws of England?

Could it be they do not respect our laws and if this is the case, they either do not respect their religion, so they should not be allowed to opt out or have any special treatment in prison. Or wose they are deliberately attacking us through our system and are not going to ever comply with our man made laws, designed to keep our society healthy. Therefore this exposes the myth that Muslims are acceptable in our country, it is obvious Muslims cannot live in modern western society’s.

Muslim sex offenders may opt out of treatment
By Ben Farmer
Last Updated: 3:06pm BST 08/04/2008

Muslim sex offenders may be allowed to opt out of a prison treatment programme because it is against their religion, it has emerged.

Muslim sex offenders who do not take part in the course may spend more time in prison, experts say
The Prison Service’s Muslim advisor has said there is a “legitimate Islamic position” that criminals should not discuss their crimes with others.

Under the Sex Offender Treatment Programme (SOTP), which treats more than 600 prisoners including rapists and sexual killers each year, offenders must discuss their crime, sometimes in groups.

Ahtsham Ali said he would now urgently raise the issue with prison policy makers, raising the prospect of an exemption or special rules for Muslim prisoners.

However, union leaders warned that as treatment is used to assess whether prisoners are suitable for early release, Muslims who have to serve longer terms because they did not take part could sue the Prison Service.

advertisementThe prospect of a dispensation for Muslim prisoners emerged after an unnamed prisoner wrote to a prison magazine asking for clarification of the position of Muslims on the programme.

He wrote: “I have always insisted that it was against Islamic teachings to discuss your offence to anyone, let alone act it out within a peer group.”

Mr Ali said the issue had been raised before and told Inside Times: “I will be taking it forward as a matter of some urgency with colleagues, including those with policy responsibility for the SOTP programme.”

The Prison Service last night said it was seeking to ensure the programme was “sensitive to the diversity of religions within the prison context”.

Mark Leech, the editor of the Prisons Handbook, said: “Muslims who don’t want to take part in the course may have to spend more time in prison, because their risk of re-offending will not be assessed as part of the treatment programme.

“This would be quite right, because we have to think about the victim.

“I think it is feasible there may be a judicial review so that Muslim sex offenders get a dispensation from the rules.”

Harry Fletcher, the assistant general secretary of probation union Napo, described the situation as an “intractable problem”.

He said: “The logic is that Muslims cannot take part in offender programmes and therefore their offending behaviour cannot be assessed and they are unlikely to be granted parole.

“They may then seek legal redress through judicial review on the grounds that they are being discriminated against on the grounds of religion.”

A spokeswoman for the Prison Service said the programme was suitable for all sex offenders.

She said: “Membership of a particular religion is not a bar to participation in accredited programmes.”

Comments(0)